IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i17p4678-d261655.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bio-Based Production Systems: Why Environmental Assessment Needs to Include Supporting Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Nicolaidis Lindqvist

    (RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Ideon Beta5, Scheelevägen 17, 22370 Lund, Sweden
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biosystems and Technology, P.O. Box 103, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden)

  • Sarah Broberg

    (RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Ideon Beta5, Scheelevägen 17, 22370 Lund, Sweden)

  • Linda Tufvesson

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biosystems and Technology, P.O. Box 103, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden)

  • Sammar Khalil

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biosystems and Technology, P.O. Box 103, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden)

  • Thomas Prade

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biosystems and Technology, P.O. Box 103, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden)

Abstract

The transition to a bio-based economy is expected to deliver substantial environmental and economic benefits. However, bio-based production systems still come with significant environmental challenges, and there is a need for assessment methods that are adapted for the specific characteristics of these systems. In this review, we investigated how the environmental aspects of bio-based production systems differ from those of non-renewable systems, what requirements these differences impose when assessing their sustainability, and to what extent mainstream assessment methods fulfil these requirements. One unique characteristic of bio-based production is the need to maintain the regenerative capacity of the system. The necessary conditions for maintaining regenerative capacity are often provided through direct or indirect interactions between the production system and surrounding “supporting” systems. Thus, in the environmental assessment, impact categories affected in both the primary production system and the supporting systems need to be included, and impact models tailored to the specific context of the study should be used. Development in this direction requires efforts to broaden the system boundaries of conventional environmental assessments, to increase the level of spatial and temporal differentiation, and to improve our understanding of how local uniqueness and temporal dynamics affect the performance of the investigated system.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Nicolaidis Lindqvist & Sarah Broberg & Linda Tufvesson & Sammar Khalil & Thomas Prade, 2019. "Bio-Based Production Systems: Why Environmental Assessment Needs to Include Supporting Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4678-:d:261655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4678/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4678/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark W. Rosegrant & Claudia Ringler & Tingju Zhu & Simla Tokgoz & Prapti Bhandary, 2013. "Water and food in the bioeconomy: challenges and opportunities for development," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 139-150, November.
    2. Renato Silvano & John Valbo-Jørgensen, 2008. "Beyond fishermen’s tales: contributions of fishers’ local ecological knowledge to fish ecology and fisheries management," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 657-675, October.
    3. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    4. Gordon, Line J. & Finlayson, C. Max & Falkenmark, Malin, 2010. "Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 512-519, April.
    5. Ines Winz & Gary Brierley & Sam Trowsdale, 2009. "The Use of System Dynamics Simulation in Water Resources Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(7), pages 1301-1323, May.
    6. Alexander Teytelboym, 2019. "Natural capital market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 138-161.
    7. Vanessa Bach & Markus Berger & Natalia Finogenova & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2017. "Assessing the Availability of Terrestrial Biotic Materials in Product Systems (BIRD)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-35, January.
    8. Daniel E. Schindler & Ray Hilborn & Brandon Chasco & Christopher P. Boatright & Thomas P. Quinn & Lauren A. Rogers & Michael S. Webster, 2010. "Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species," Nature, Nature, vol. 465(7298), pages 609-612, June.
    9. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    10. Markus Berger & Stephan Pfister & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2015. "Saving the Planet’s Climate or Water Resources? The Trade-Off between Carbon and Water Footprints of European Biofuels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-19, May.
    11. Nuri Cihat Onat & Murat Kucukvar & Anthony Halog & Scott Cloutier, 2017. "Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-25, April.
    12. Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer & Sarah Sim & Perrine Hamel & Benjamin Bryant & Ryan Noe & Carina Mueller & Giles Rigarlsford & Michal Kulak & Virginia Kowal & Richard Sharp & Julie Clavreul & Edward Price & S, 2017. "Life cycle assessment needs predictive spatial modelling for biodiversity and ecosystem services," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, April.
    13. Rickard Arvidsson & Anne‐Marie Tillman & Björn A. Sandén & Matty Janssen & Anders Nordelöf & Duncan Kushnir & Sverker Molander, 2018. "Environmental Assessment of Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Prospective LCA," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1286-1294, December.
    14. Roxanne Suzette Lorilla & Konstantinos Poirazidis & Stamatis Kalogirou & Vassilis Detsis & Aristotelis Martinis, 2018. "Assessment of the Spatial Dynamics and Interactions among Multiple Ecosystem Services to Promote Effective Policy Making across Mediterranean Island Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, September.
    15. Jennifer S. Ford & Nathan L. Pelletier & Friederike Ziegler & Astrid J. Scholz & Peter H. Tyedmers & Ulf Sonesson & Sarah A. Kruse & Howard Silverman, 2012. "Proposed Local Ecological Impact Categories and Indicators for Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaculture," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(2), pages 254-265, April.
    16. Anders Bjørn & Michael Z. Hauschild, 2013. "Absolute versus Relative Environmental Sustainability," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(2), pages 321-332, April.
    17. Johan Berg Pettersen & Xingqiang Song, 2017. "Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the Arctic: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    19. T.I.E. Veldkamp & Y. Wada & J.C.J.H. Aerts & P. Döll & S. N. Gosling & J. Liu & Y. Masaki & T. Oki & S. Ostberg & Y. Pokhrel & Y. Satoh & H. Kim & P. J. Ward, 2017. "Water scarcity hotspots travel downstream due to human interventions in the 20th and 21st century," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, August.
    20. Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Jan Janosch Förster & Joachim Von Braun, 2018. "Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    21. Therese Bennich & Salim Belyazid, 2017. "The Route to Sustainability—Prospects and Challenges of the Bio-Based Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, May.
    22. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    23. Louis Sears & Joseph Caparelli & Clouse Lee & Devon Pan & Gillian Strandberg & Linh Vuu & C. -Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, 2018. "Jevons’ Paradox and Efficient Irrigation Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zeug, Walther & Kluson, Forrest Rafael & Mittelstädt, Nora & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2021. "Results from a stakeholder survey on bioeconomy monitoring and perceptions on bioeconomy in Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 8/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    2. Zeug, Walther & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2020. "Towards a holistic and integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of the bioeconomy: Background on concepts, visions and measurements," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2020, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. George B. Frisvold & Steven M. Moss & Andrea Hodgson & Mary E. Maxon, 2021. "Understanding the U.S. Bioeconomy: A New Definition and Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Yuliia Maksymiv & Valentyna Yakubiv & Nadia Pylypiv & Iryna Hryhoruk & Iryna Piatnychuk & Nazariy Popadynets, 2021. "Strategic Challenges for Sustainable Governance of the Bioeconomy: Preventing Conflict between SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    4. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen, J., 2021. "Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Stefan Bößner & Francis X. Johnson & Zoha Shawoo, 2020. "Governing the Bioeconomy: What Role for International Institutions?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    8. Ayrapetyan, David & Hermans, Frans, 2020. "Introducing a multiscalar framework for biocluster research: A meta-analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(9).
    9. Sven Wydra, 2019. "Value Chains for Industrial Biotechnology in the Bioeconomy-Innovation System Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.
    10. Lisa Biber-Freudenberger & Amit Kumar Basukala & Martin Bruckner & Jan Börner, 2018. "Sustainability Performance of National Bio-Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    11. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    12. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    13. Emilio Abad-Segura & Ana Batlles-delaFuente & Mariana-Daniela González-Zamar & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña, 2021. "Implications for Sustainability of the Joint Application of Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: A Worldwide Trend Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-24, June.
    14. Troxler, David & Zabel, Astrid, 2021. "Clearing forests to make way for a sustainable economy transition in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    15. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    16. Delia-Elena Diaconașu & Ionel Bostan & Cristina Căutișanu & Irina Chiriac, 2022. "Insights into the Sustainable Development of the Bioeconomy at the European Level, in the Context of the Desired Clean Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    18. Tévécia Ronzon & Susanne Iost & George Philippidis, 2022. "Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an output-based approach with a shift-share analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8195-8217, June.
    19. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    20. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4678-:d:261655. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.